FFP

[paul_e]

The game went as many games have over the years, 1 team had the majority of the play but couldn't score and then the other went up the other end and scored with a sucker punch. Except piss poor refereeing meant it got disallowed. If that goal had stood we get a point in that game and, back to the topic, have no worries about the UEFA 70% cap for this coming season.

I reckon we'd also have taken the Chelsea style deferral for a year and used this summer to make 3-4 signings to fill out the squad.

[tomd2103]

We’ve behind the current financial elite since we missed our chance in 92. And certainly more so once Chelsea and Man City found their pots of gold. We’ve been missing opportunities and playing catch up ever since.

Agree completely.  But it's why I choose Spurs as the comparison.  Man Utd obviously had the Fergie-era success to build their global commmercial behemoth. Liverpool had theirs built before Man Utd, and have been competing at the top end pretty much consistently. Arsenal too had a period of relative on-field success to build that global business.  Chelsea and City both benefitted from billionaires before the rules changed, so they got the head-start that no-one else gets to have these days.  Spurs, meanwhile, hadn't won anything for over a decade, but were relatively successful at staying in the competition for European places, and have built a really strong commercial operation out of that.  That's what we need.  Any commercial operation that RELIES on on-field success, is only ever a couple of bad signings, or an injury crisis, or a poached manager from falling apart.  We need one that delivers season in, season out, even if we don't lift silverware.  We need one that is sustainable, as long as we remain "in the mix" for trophies year-on-year. 

And that only happens when we've done that for a few consecutive years, unfortunately.

Spurs have the added advantage of being in London though.   

[IFWaters]

We’ve behind the current financial elite since we missed our chance in 92. And certainly more so once Chelsea and Man City found their pots of gold. We’ve been missing opportunities and playing catch up ever since.

Agree completely.  But it's why I choose Spurs as the comparison.  Man Utd obviously had the Fergie-era success to build their global commmercial behemoth. Liverpool had theirs built before Man Utd, and have been competing at the top end pretty much consistently. Arsenal too had a period of relative on-field success to build that global business.  Chelsea and City both benefitted from billionaires before the rules changed, so they got the head-start that no-one else gets to have these days.  Spurs, meanwhile, hadn't won anything for over a decade, but were relatively successful at staying in the competition for European places, and have built a really strong commercial operation out of that.  That's what we need.  Any commercial operation that RELIES on on-field success, is only ever a couple of bad signings, or an injury crisis, or a poached manager from falling apart.  We need one that delivers season in, season out, even if we don't lift silverware.  We need one that is sustainable, as long as we remain "in the mix" for trophies year-on-year. 

And that only happens when we've done that for a few consecutive years, unfortunately.

Spurs have the added advantage of being in London though.

Yes but it's the utter shit hole of London. It's not like their ground is on Park Lane.

[Sexual Ealing]

I don't think their players are restricted to living in N17.

[Percy McCarthy]

One of the game-changing things about Spurs ground and the revenue it generates is the average spend-per-fan since they moved. I think it’s gone from something like £30-odd quid to £130-odd, due mainly to people spending more time (and therefore money) there. That’s something we can address to an extent by giving people better facilities. The Warehouse is a step in the right direction, and will help the club understand demand and perhaps further similar investment.